But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that's been circulating for weeks. If you're an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he's Muslim or won't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.

Actually, there's at least one big difference. A recent New York Timesopinion piece spreading the rape kit myth was the New York Times's most emailed article on Friday, and as of this writing, is still number 10. I'm pretty confident that the Times hasn't been spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor. Here's a suggested motto for the Times: "The WorldNet Daily of the Left." Doesn't quite have the same ring as "All the News Fit to Print," but increasingly, it's becoming more accurate.

UPDATE: By the way, the Slate piece doesn't take the rumor apart quite as well as other pieces I've seen, in particular this piece at Newsbusters, which concludes:

In the end, it seems that this story is a wild exaggeration about Palin's role in this policy. There is no proof that she ever knew about the policy until long after the situation hit the news, it is untrue that her town was "unique" in blocking the measure, no evidence that she, herself, was notorious for the policy, and no proof that any victims were ever charged for rape kits. In fact, according to the Uniform Crime Report there were only 5 rapes reported in the 6 years she was mayor of Wasilla and four of those happened after the state law in question was passed.

By contrast, consider the Times piece in question: "When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams." [False on two counts; no one was billed, and to the extent there was an official policy to the contrary, it wasn't started under Palin's watch]

"That's also why, when news of Wasilla's practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska's State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it." [False, Wasilla wasn't mentioned at any of the hearings on the bill; other towns were.]

"In the absence of answers, speculation is bubbling in the blogosphere that Wasilla's policy of billing rape victims may have something to do with Ms. Palin's extreme opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape." [Completely made up. The author seems to think, apparently incorrectly, that rape kits contain a morning-after pill.]

It's not clear that the 'myth' has been debunked, even though Slate and NRO say so. Former Alaskan Governor Knowles and Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein are on record saying that "Wasilla under Sarah Palin's administration chose to charge sexual assault victims for the forensic kits, and that's the choice they made. They easily could have made the other choice."

The concern stems of course from the question of whether Palin's personal religious beliefs (Pentacostal, anti-abortion) affect her judgment and execution of duties as a secular leader. The rape kits contain a morning after pill, which would be considered a form of abortion by someone of Palin's faith. This is the aspect of the issue that has NOT been addressed to my satisfaction by Palin or her spokesperson.

So the defense against the "untrue" rumor appears to be: yes, the city did indeed have the policy of billing the rape victim's insurance company rather than paying for the rape kit. But the city didn't enforce it often. This strikes me as a "Yes I smoked marijuana, but I did not inhale" defense. The question is why the city had such a policy in the first place, even if it wasn't apparently enforced.

Note that billing insurance companies usually means the person will have to pay part of the expense themselves, maybe even all depending on their health insurance deductible. For example, I'm on the hook for 20% of my medical bills under my plan until I reach a pretty high out of pocket maximum for the year.

I think most rumors get overblown on left-wing sites. This one is not as serious as it first seemed, but there is at least some fire to the smoke on this one.

I've been reading the Times off and on since I was in the 5th grade, and I've never seen it be as biased as in this election season. The piece in question is, of course, an op-ed, not a news piece, but I know the Times claims to have standards of accuracy for its op-ed pages. What I especially "love" about the piece is how the author speculates that Palin charged women for their rape kits because of her anti-abortion views, even though there is no evidence that any woman in Wasilla was charged for a rape kit while Palin was mayor (there was apparently only one reported rape in town in the relevant time period, and that women was not charged), or that Palin was even aware of the issue.

The "myth" that has been revealed -- the "nasty and untrue rumor" -- is a claim about legislative intent in Alaska. Some are claiming that when the Alaska legislature outlawed the practice of charging women for rape kits, they were motivated in part by that practice in the town of Wasilla. The debunkers say that this is a myth, and that the legislature did not specifically have Wasilla in mind.

Even if the truth on that question lies with the debunkers (and it looks like it does), it is not a myth that Wasilla charged rape victims for the cost of rape kits while Sarah Palin was mayor.

Far more interestingly, while Palin now says that she doesn't believe rape victims should have to pay for their rape tests, she refuses to answer questions about when she learned of the policy or whether she tried to change it. From USA Today:

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

"Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear," she said. "To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."

Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters.

And most interestingly of all, Governor Palin, so far as I know, continues to believe that women impregnated through forcible rape must be compelled to give birth.

I have finally identified exactly why I feel so utterly disspirited by this election. It is because the populace has, in large part, accepted rule by intentional media deception.

It is clear that anyone of whom mainstream media outlets politically disapprove will be subject to such slime: those outlets are happy to circulate malicious falsehoods not only about the candidates themselves, but about their minor children too. Anyone contemplating office who dissents from prevailing media orthodoxies can expect full-scale fraud and character assassination, which now extend to that person's family as well.

This intentional manipulation will assure that candidates for office who dare to dissent from what mainstream media demand people think will balk mightily at the warfare sure to be directed at them and their kin.

That essentially works to establish deceptive media as self-appointed arbiters of who will be allowed to run for office unmolested by intentional fraud and slime.

And large portions of the population simply accept that manipulation and think what the media order them to think.

Her police chief evidently followed the issue closely while the bill was being sent through the legislature. He spoke up against it, and the local paper covered it. That might have been a good time for Palin to say something.

All it would take is for Palin to say: "I did not know about the city's policy, and if I had I would have ordered it changed." Boom, end of story.

it is not a myth that Wasilla charged rape victims for the cost of rape kits while Sarah Palin was mayor.

Eric, there is evidence that the police chief thought such a policy was a good idea, because he was quoted as saying so. But there was only one reported rape victim during the relevant time period, and she wasn't charged, so the way you phrased your claim is wrong. Given that this clearly wasn't exactly the main issue facing Wasilla, it's unlikely that Palin even remembers when she became aware of this; if her campaign made a specific factual claim about that, and someone dug up a record to the contrary, it would be a big scandal.

"One would think that the easiest way to dispel all these rumors would be for Palin to hold a no-holds-barred press conference and address them once and for all."

One would reasonably think that only if the media had some basic commitment to accurately reporting facts, including her words during such a conference. They have, unfortunately, proven that they lack that commitment.

I find it amusing that the only people that seem to remember much about this are Tony Knowles, and some other people who are hugely in the tank for Obama.

Sarah Palin defeated Knowles in the gubernatorial election. Now, if Tony Knowles knew then that Wasilla had had a policy of charging rape victims for rape kits, why didn't he bring this up 2 years ago, since he is the one who signed the law in question?

Eric, there is evidence that the police chief thought such a policy was a good idea, because he was quoted as saying so. But there was only one reported rape victim during the relevant time period, and she wasn't charged, so the way you phrased your claim is wrong.

You are right; my phrasing was wrong. I meant to say that it's not a myth that Wasilla's policy was to charge.

"Given that this clearly wasn't exactly the main issue facing Wasilla, it's unlikely that Palin even remembers when she became aware of this."

Also undoubtedly true. There was the 4th of July parade to plan, and probably some tough mosquito-spraying issues to resolve. And that's to say nothing of all the Russian spies infiltrating from just across the "shared maritime border" under cover of 20-hour-a-day winter darkness.

I'll start with the most basic thing... therefore, what? She thinks rape is A-OK?

I mean what do you liberal morons really expect to prove here? Its as lame as when Obama tries to say he would be better for veterans benefits than McCain. Pick your battles. Trying to claim that she is cool with rape or some idiocy like that only makes you look bad.

But now on the details. First, no one has shown any evidence that anyone was ever charged for the rape kits, and other reports positively state no one has ever been charged. So either 1) no one knew it was the law or 2) it was de facto being ignored. And before long it was repealed by a state law.

So then you are worried that inoperative but odious law was on the books. I am reminded of when Rehnquist was smeared for owning a house on which there was a restrictive covenant put on it long before he owned it. It was silly because 1) Rehnquist said he didn't know and 2) he argued that even if he did, so what? They were illegal anyway.

> The rape kits contain a morning after pill, which would be considered a form of abortion by someone of Palin's faith.

Really? Prove that. Prove both it would have a morning after pill, and that Palin specifically considers that to be an abortion.

By the way, she has not been pentacostal for years.

And, by the way, if she objected to the morning after pill being included, or just included for free, then why not do something about that specifically, instead of the entire rape kit? Why use a meat cleaver when she could use a scalpel?

Here's what I predict. You don't know the answer to any of these questions, because in truth you are assuming the facts based on the notion that she is an evil republican and that's all you have to know.

I have never seen the left become so unhinged about a person so quickly. I am at a loss to explain it.

Angus

> This strikes me as a "Yes I smoked marijuana, but I did not inhale" defense.

Not at all. Bill Clinton said yes I tried it but I didn't inhale. It was a bullshit defense because the fact was he was admitting to taking it, and he brought up an irrelevant distinction that no one cared about. I mean really, if you don't like a person using pot, do you give a shit whether you smoked it or ate it? The substance of the issue was whether he used the drug.

Here it is exactly flipped. No one got charged for the kit, and indeed only one person was on record as being raped anyway during that period. So then you are here going, "but the law was on the books!" Really? We are going to hold mayors responsible for every silly law on the books? Just as the substance of the issue relating to "but I didn't inhale" was whether Bill Clinton used the drug, the substance of the issue here is whether rape victims were charged for the kits. Bill Clinton did take those drugs, and Sarah Palin's city did not charge for the kits. And you saying, "but its on the books" is the part that sounds like "but I didn't inhale" than anything we say it Palin's defense.

> Boom, end of story.

Give me a break. It never ends with you howling monkeys on the left.

Floridan

> One would think that the easiest way to dispel all these rumors would be for Palin to hold a no-holds-barred press conference and address them once and for all.

Sorry, it doesn't deserve one. It is that silly.

David,

By the way, it is not a complete myth about Obama not putting his hand over his heart. One time he didn't do it. He has made sure to always do so since then, just as after making a big stink about not wearing a flag pin, he suddenly started to wear one.

Dan M.

Well, that is the other thing. She took on the corrupt network in the state and kicked its ass. Part of this is those corrupt politicians getting their revenge.

She can't set the record straight in public because the Big Bad Media will still lie about her? Do you folks have any clue how pathetic that sounds? I thought she was, you know, a barracuda, or pit bull, or moose, or other tough-sounding animal.

Charging rape victims for rape kits was the policy in North Carolina until changed this year according to the Raleigh News &Observer. So maybe it was John Edward's fault. Or the Democratic governor. Or the Democratic mayor of Raleigh. You might want to check the policy in your state.

I'll start with the most basic thing... therefore, what? She thinks rape is A-OK?

Why would that logically follow at all?

I think she probably believes as most people do, that rape is a horrific crime. The justice system sees it that way.

Abortion, on the other hand, is legal. Yet Palin believes that abortion should be banned in nearly all cases, including rape and incest, and including where the life of the mother is threatened. She has a conflict of interest on this issue, where her beliefs diverge with the law on the matter. The question of Rape Kits is material to this because she is on record as opposing the use of public funds for abortions. (http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm)

She has not given any press conferences since she was named to the ticket. That was a month ago. It's pretty absurd, don't you think?

Some basic facts: Rape kits don't include morning after pills. They include swabs, combs, baggies and other things for gathering evidence, and a series of tests for STD's. Obviously, not every woman who was assaulted would want a morning after pill or need one (e.g., the assault didn't involve ejaculation).

It was a bad practice, and probably most people were shocked to hear of it, but I actually doubt it was a "policy" at all. My guess is that the kits were provided by hospitals, and administered by hospital employees, and so billed to the victim's insurance company.

I expect the mayor of Raleigh and the governor of NC heard about it the way I did, by reading it in the newspaper. I don't see how you can reasonably blame Palin.

BTW, from what I gather, rape victims in Alaska and elsewhere were not CHARGED for rape kits, they were BILLED for them, so that their insurance company would pay. But of course, the victim is upset by seeing the bill, and may not be aware that the hospital won't try to collect from her. So the issue was never about actually getting money from the victim.

And thanks for that info, Wallace. You'd think the NY Times editorialist would bother to find out what's in a rape kit before spinning out tales about Palin's views on them.

let's see-there is no evidence whatsoever that any rape victim was billed for the kits and documentation that such kits were paid for by the municipality-but, to EM, it remains an open issue. if that is what passes for intellectual honesty, god help us. throw in the fact that the town's name was never even mentioned during the hearings that allegedly were directed to it and you still don't have EM convinced. what could convince a left wing hack gussied up as a law professor?

Look, clearly the NYT editorial is over the top and misleading, but no more so than this very post.

Reading this post one would think it's clearly false that this was ever Wasillia policy and, that like the Obama is a muslim falsehood, it was made up out of whole cloth.

For instance one would think a generally libertarian blog like this would realize that billing a person directly for a rape kit and billing their insurance company are both ways to require the victim to pay. One requires them to pay for the risk that they may be raped and have to pay for a kit the other requires them to pay when actually raped. This is like trying to bill someone's homeowner's policy for the cost of fingerprinting the scene after a murder took place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the NYT piece and I agree that the truth is that given the single rape victim during this period in Wasillia, Palin may (reasonably) have not even have considered the issue. However, if you are going to slam the NYT you shouldn't do so in a blog post that gives an equally misleading impression.

For instance one would think a generally libertarian blog like this would realize that billing a person directly for a rape kit and billing their insurance company are both ways to require the victim to pay. One requires them to pay for the risk that they may be raped and have to pay for a kit the other requires them to pay when actually raped.

It doesn't sound to me like you are aware of how health insurance premiums are set. A better critique would be, "Palin's police chief was an idiot, because he thought that if the city didn't pay for rape kits, but health insurance did, that somehow the taxpayers were 'off the hook,' rather than seeing the cost reflected in their insurance premiums." Be that as it may, this is a side issue, since NO ONE IN WASILLA WAS CHARGED while Palin was mayor.

Aren't we forgetting a little bit more of the context: Wasn't one of the reasons that the former Sheriff/Polic Chief was fired precisely around the issue of trying to obtain federal funding for the kits?

With respect to the meta issue of whether the NY Times is "in the tank" for anybody--and all those years of mindlessly adoring St. McCain, the Maverick.

Methinks thou dost protesteth too much professor.

But let's ask the really important question:

Do you really feel that Governer Palin is someone you want to have as the leader of our nation?

I assume that every victim who ends up in emergency care has their insurance billed for whatever service was provided, likely without paying a deductible. It sucks, but I'm sure you're going to want your insurance to cover the costs when you get the shit beat out of you on the street, or when you get shot by the NYPD. Then you sue, sue, sue the person who victimized you. However, if no one is caught, does any libertarian honestly think that the state should subsidize your health care when you are victimized?

eddie, that wasn't about rape kits, it was about a domestic violence initiative that he wanted funded that she didn't think was a federal priority. So you could look at that and say "Why does she hate women!?" But then that would ignore that she did other things to try to address domestic violence while in office. She fought with the state police over all manner of budget issues, apparently. Do you really think that giving the state police more money is really going to bring down domestic violence rates?

David Bernstein: "I'm pretty confident that the Times hasn't been spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor."

No, but they did print the appalling Edward Luttwak op-ed that said "Even if Obama isn't a Muslim, the Muslim world will regard him as a convert from Islam and a Muslim apostate and therefore try to kill him," an article that had pretty much no basis in fact.

Isn't it reasonably well established that Obama was raised as a Muslim? I believe that the Times recently took down an old article that referred to his study of the Koran in school. So wouldn't it be based in fact that the Muslim world would likely view him as a convert from Islam?

Newsbusters is more factually accurate, imho, than the New York Times, but yes they wear their point of view on their sleeves. And I have so long ago given up on a fair media I suspect that is all I can hope for—a media that honestly confesses its biases.

Steve W.

> Is it possible that the policy of charging rape victims discouraged the reporting of rape?

Only if you were forced to accept it. And even then, I am sure most people would be surprised to know that is the policy. An disincentive doesn't work unless it is known of by the population you wish to discourage.

Joseph

> She can't set the record straight in public because the Big Bad Media will still lie about her?

Well, look how she had been treated so far. Has Barrack Obama ever been questioned so hard about foreign policy, about his ties to Tony Rezco, his ties to Ayers, or Wright?

B.B.

> Why would that logically follow at all?

I am at a loss to follow any of the logic of this attack, which is my meta point there.

> She has a conflict of interest on this issue, where her beliefs diverge with the law on the matter.

To say that misunderstands the term "conflict of interest." A conflict of interest would be when you, say, own an abortion clinic and you are also a public official voting on whether to fund that clinic. Or gee, like as if your wife is corporate counsel for a hospital, and you obtain an earmark for that hospital.

A mere policy disagreement with the Supreme Court's made up right to an abortion is not a conflict of interest. And the Supreme Court has itself said that although there was a right to an abortion, there is no right to free abortions; you have to pay for them, yes, even if you are raped. Or more precisely the state has no obligation to pay for them, unless they choose to.

> The question of Rape Kits is material to this because she is on record as opposing the use of public funds for abortions.

And you have failed to prove that she considers a morning after pill an abortion drug, or that the rape kits included it, even though I specifically challenged you to do so.

> She has not given any press conferences since she was named to the ticket. That was a month ago. It's pretty absurd, don't you think?

I think the media's reaction is more absurd. You guys are a bit like the man who rapes a woman and then wonders why she won't go out with him again.

> the Obama is a muslim falsehood... was made up out of whole cloth.

Except that wasn't. First, in Islamic tradition, he is a Muslim, and thus an apostate. Which is not fair to him, but whatever. Second, really are you going to pretend it is silly paranoia to say that a man named Barrack HUSSEIN Obama might be, you know, a Muslim? Third, in his school in Indonesia, his listed faith? Islam. Now, they explain it away by saying that they would go by the faith of his father, which feeds back to my first point. And to I have to mentioned that he said that McCain hadn't attacked him for "my Muslim faith." By the way, that hard-hitting interviewer made sure to correct him right away. Do you think they would ever do that for Palin? I'm not saying he is a Muslim, though I am not sure he is a Christian either. I have long said that Obama's real reason for belonging to that racist church was opportunism, not belief, and thus I wonder if he ever really converted to anything; but if you want to say he really believed in that racist church's doctrine, knock yourself out.

Eddie

> Wasn't one of the reasons that the former Sheriff/Polic Chief was fired precisely around the issue of trying to obtain federal funding for the kits?

I don't know. Care to prove that?

> Do you really feel that Governer Palin is someone you want to have as the leader of our nation?

More than McCain, and waaaaay more than Obama. I mean the worst you can say is that she is a radical anti-abortionist. Okay. But is that worst than being so radically in favor of abortion that you block a bill banning infanticide? Even Hillary wouldn't go that far, even NARAL didn't go that far, but Obama did.

I mean, let's have a conversation about who has a more evil definition of when life begins. Or is that above your pay grade?

Dan M.

> So you could look at that and say "Why does she hate women!?"

Well, besides that, I thought the Democrats were angry at her for trying to get her ex-brother in law fired for, among other things, domestic violence. So I guess they hate women! Or just the sisters of republican women, I guess.

Randy R.

> Then make the press conference televised. LIke the Couric/Gibons interviews.

> Oh yeah, that's exactly why she won't do it....

Right. The first question would be from Gibson. He would say, "I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10, can you name that number?"

"I don't know, Charlie. 6?"

"Actually, its 7. Do you really think you are ready to be president if you don't know that?"

And if you don't think that is pretty much exactly what he did with that "Bush Doctrine" question, you are delusional.

actually, ace of spades has his enrollment form up from those early years. religion listed is muslim. by the EM standard, this makes him a muslim and no amount of evidence to the contrary can change the mind of a left wing hack law professor.

On the subject of rape, I'm sure Sarah favors the death penalty for rape whereas her detractors don't.

continues to believe that women impregnated through forcible rape must be compelled to give birth.

She opposes abortion in cases of rape or incest (and conventional intercourse). I gather that she only supports abortion to save the life of the mother.

She is speaking here of her personal view of abortion which is a bit more liberal than that of fighting Joe Biden since, as a faithful Catholic, he personally supports the policy of his church condemning abortion in all circumstances (including life of the mother).

Sara hasn't actually drafted legislation on abortion so we don't know what it would look like. When asked, she pointed out that the Governor of Alaska can't outlaw abortion, only the legislature can.

In any case, you fornicators out there don't have to worry. If Roe v. Wade is overturned you can always go to states like California or Connecticut for you abortions since the right is enshrined in their state constitutions.

The comparison between the rape kit story and "Obama is a Muslim" is ridiculous. It was the policy of the city to charge. If, in fact, no one was charged, that doesn't change what the policy was. (Though I note that that conclusion comes from an NR staffer). That other places had the same policy doesn't change that either.

Further, Palin has never addressed what she knew about this policy. Instead we get an evasive non-denial from her spokeswoman.

Finally, you claim that,

to the extent there was an official policy to the contrary, it wasn't started under Palin's watch.

I believe the policy was in fact instituted by the police chief she appointed.

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.
Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she [Palin] said, "I would choose life."

How about this?

Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor's Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

Maybe you want more evidence?

ST. PAUL — The Republican Party platform this year will reassert the party's opposition to abortion. And again it will not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Senator John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.

Mr. McCain has been trying to win over social conservatives wary of his candidacy, and the party is set to approve the platform Monday without the exceptions. On Friday, he named a vice-presidential running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who opposes any exception for abortion and whose selection was hailed unequivocally by groups opposing abortion rights.

> I believe the policy was in fact instituted by the police chief she appointed.

Ah, who says it is only republicans who mix faith and politics? Here you have a faith-based attack on Palin. I think that is a tad worse than, say, believing life begins at conception, because rather than believing the answer might be something, you might actually, you know, find out.

actually, not so ridiculous-on one hand, you have a document stating BHO is a muslim. on the other, you have no evidence that any rape victim was charged for a rape kit and, in fact, documentary support for the fact that the City paid for the kits. what does the good inquisitive leftist credit as being fact based on the documentation? the latter, of course.

The NY Times, like most papers, does not like to admit error. It think it's a journalistic problem, not a political problem.

One of the things about health care is the extent to which the patient has to put up with other people spending his money. A rape victim who has fallen into the hands of the helping professions has little choice but to go to the ER (which IMHO is a good idea) without any discussion of the financial consequences. Compliance would certainly diminish with any mention of money. It's exactly the same with any sudden illness.

What doesn't make any sense to me is that supposedly no one was ever charged, and yet the police chief apparently felt strongly enough about the issue to serve as the sole opposition to the proposed state law. If the situation had never even come up, and if Wasilla is the kind of town where there might be one reported rape a year, tops, then why even make an issue of it? Something doesn't fit.

You wanted words, I gave you words. Personally, I don't care- whether she is against it personally but wants to keep Roe v. Wade, or is against it and will work tirelessly overturn RvW and then seek a Federal Ban doesn't change my vote.

I think, given the evidence, that there is a rebuttable presumption at this point. I look forward to Palin's first press conference when she explains whether this is a personal view, or a view she wants imposed on others.

Mr. Frissell, I believe that you are mistaken in saying that the Catholic Church forbids abortions even where the mother's life is at issue? My understanding is that the Church always forbids abortion when the purpose is to achieve the abortion itself. But if a mother has a life-threatening illness that requires treatment, and the treatment would cause an abortion as a side effect, then the treatment is permitted. This concept is referred to as "double effect," and it occurs in other areas, too.

Can you point me to something that says otherwise?

Also, abortions to save the mother's life, as opposed to the harder to define issue of mother's health, are exceedingly rare.

"I think, given the evidence, that there is a rebuttable presumption at this point."

There is no such thing. The contention is that she wants to ban all abortion. There is a world of difference separating personal opposition to abortion and expressed desire to ban it for everyone else. Even positing on faith that the words you posted are accurate, all they indicate is that she personally opposes abortion.

No such thing as a rebuttable presumption?? You must not be a lawyer. *grin*

Here's the thing- given her words and her associations (Feminists for Life), she is pro-life with the only exception being the life of the mother. This is a positive thing with the GOP base. Given her own words and memberships, I think that there is a fair rebuttable presumption at this point that if she believe this, she would govern (seek laws, appoint judges) accordingly.

Here's the problem- if she comes out and says that it's a personal choice, she alienates some of her most fervent supporters. If she says it would influence her governance, it would alienate independents (its a view out of the mainstream). Therefore, she says nothing.

I would love to hear a further explanation from her (hence, the rebuttable presumption) but absent that I think that her own words and associations serve as evidence for the belief she would govern according to her conscience.

I'm not catholic, but I am married to one. And my understanding from her priest is that morally it is better to die than to kill.

If you think a fetus is alive and all that, there is a logic to that. Suppose you were in a situation where you had to choose between your life or that of a baby? Wouldn't saving the baby be the moral thing to do.

But as a matter of law, the catholic church might have a softer stand than as a matter of morality.

Loki

> or a view she wants imposed on others.

You know, that is such a bullshit way of putting it. She isn't proposing to ban advocating for whatever pro-abortion position you prefer. It is no more "imposing her views" to ban abortion than it is imposing your views on property rights to outlaw theft. I am sick and tired of the left thinking 1) that the right to disagree means the right to act on that disagreement, and 2) that the desire to control behavior is the same as controlling thought.

Shelby C.

You are kind of coming into the middle of this, and I don't think you know what all went before. Someone has been claiming that rape kits contain morning after pills. That is a disputed point, but some people have been arguing based on it. Thus the morning after pill would arguably be health care and that is where that comes from. I don't accept the premise, so I am largely ignoring that discussion, but that is where they are. for your information.

Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

"It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."

Alaska's Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000.

"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said.

During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."

But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.

"It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.

Also, the Alaska bill that Charlie Fannon stonewalled on, and that Palin has avoided commenting on, does indeed require that the local government pay for the collection of forensic evidence, STD testing, and emergency contraception.

Sec. 18.68.040. Costs of examination and certain medical care to be borne by law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency or other authority that is investigating a sexual assault that is alleged or suspected to have occurred within its jurisdiction is responsible for the costs of testing for sexually transmitted diseases, emergency contraception, and examination of the victim necessary for
(1) collecting evidence using the sexual assault examination kit under AS 18.68.010 or otherwise; or
(2) determining whether a sexual assault has occurred.

So even if it is true that the rape kits with emergency contraception provided in them under the Alaskan law are different than the rape kits that Wasilla under Palin were charging to rape victims, there is still the very real question of whether she feels that contraceptives in the rape kits were a reason to either obstruct the legislation, or cause victims to pay for the kits. Remember, it is her publicly held position that the state should not pay for abortions of any kind, and that if her own daughter was raped, she would be made to bear any pregnancy to term.

I think she didn't like the legislation, and ducked it as long as possible. There is nothing illegal about it, just, some would say, immoral. I think she isn't speaking on it now, because it is political suicide to do so. The matter of abortion is of course a highly charged issue, but people have an absolute right, above any need to 'be nice to her in the media', a right to know where she stands when it comes to enforcing or complying with the law, and acting in the public interest.

Again, a press conference would be nice, and we could stop guessing at what she did or didn't do, or did or did not mean.

Mr. Croft is the saying these things yet the city is never mentioned during the legislative hearings. that would cause some to raise a skeptical eye. but, don't let a little fact like that get in the way of a talking point. can we now discuss why obama's stepfather listed him as a muslim?

BB, given the above, and given that no one can find a record of a Wasilla rape victim being charged for the rape kit, it would be plausible, but far from proven, to infer that it's possible that the police chief, and Palin, opposed the legislation in question because it required the government to pay for emergency contraception that some would consider akin to abortion. But that's not been the allegation leveled at Palin, the allegation is that Wasilla actually charged women for the rape kits, with Palin's support, and, indeed, at her initiative.

And by the way, Croft isn't a credible source, not only is he a Palin political opponent, but he claims that they couldn't stop Wasilla from charging women, yet there is no evidence Wasilla did, and at the time no one raised Wasilla in the hearings as an example of a town that did, even though they talked about six other, equally obscure, towns.

Well, maybe you find a rival democrat who is demonstrably wrong on the issue of whether people were being charged for the rape kits (they were not, contrary to Mr. Croft's assertion) credible, but I don't.

I mean, what did this chief of police actually do? Quote his words. At most he felt the people shouldn't pay, but instead favored transferring it to the insurance company. Which is almost the same thing anyway. He also suggested that the rapist should pay it back. So it amounts to a bureaucrat whining about his budget. Silly, yes, but not exactly proof that Palin doesn't care about violence against women, as the silly people in this article contends.

> So even if it is true that the rape kits with emergency contraception provided in them under the Alaskan law are different than the rape kits that Wasilla under Palin were charging to rape victims, there is still the very real question of whether she feels that contraceptives in the rape kits were a reason to either obstruct the legislation, or cause victims to pay for the kits.

Except you haven't yet established her opposition to them, or that she considers a morning after pill an abortion pill. Its advocates vigorously deny it, and indeed the law you quoted calls it "emergency birth control." Why can't she agree with that, exactly?

BECAUSE YOU KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HER, WITHOUT ALL OF THE FACTS.

You know, that is such a bullshit way of putting it. She isn't proposing to ban advocating for whatever pro-abortion position you prefer. It is no more "imposing her views" to ban abortion than it is imposing your views on property rights to outlaw theft. I am sick and tired of the left thinking 1) that the right to disagree means the right to act on that disagreement, and 2) that the desire to control behavior is the same as controlling thought.

Uh, no. Currently, abortion is legal. Abortion is legal in cases of rape and incest. Palin has a personal view that this should not be the case. If she seeks to govern accordingly, she is imposing her (religious/moral) views on others. I would say the same if a politician believed that all babies with Downs Syndrome should be aborted, and wanted to legislate accordingly.

Attempts to regulate conduct that do not harm others (here's where the crux o the abortion debate is, FWIW) based on your own moral or personal views is imposing your view on others.

If a woman is raped, and wants to get an abortion, and 2016 President Palin hass advocated for and signed a bill outlawing all abortions, then she is imposing her views on others.

> If she seeks to govern accordingly, she is imposing her (religious/moral) views on others.

Really, so if I pass a law outlawing theft I am "imposing my views on property rights" on people?

> Attempts to regulate conduct that do not harm others (here's where the crux o the abortion debate is, FWIW) based on your own moral or personal views is imposing your view on others.

But that assumes that there is no "other" to be harmed in an abortion. And that more than anything is where the real crux of the debate is. I don't know a single person who wants to regulate abortion simply because its fun to tell others what to do. They do it because they consider abortion the taking of a human life. So your argument assumes away a central problem in your analysis.

Besides, 90% of the people who claim that libertarian ideal don't really believe it, because they haven't really thought it through. Because then you would have to believe in allowing incest, animal cruelty, desecration of corpses, and so on. I mean no other person is harmed when people engage in that conduct, right?

So now one of three things will happen. Either you will admit that maybe you really don't believe in that libertarian ideal so much (unlikely). Or you will come up with some explanation why that conduct should be banned that doesn't really hold up or can be applied equally to abortion, even if the fetus is not a person. Or you will prove to be crazy enough to say that those things should be legal, too. Or admittedly, there is a 4th possibility: a mix of the above.

I have had this conversation a few times, but it will be interesting to see how it comes out this time.

Regarding the putative policy to bill victim's insurance: As far as I know, there isn't any evidence that this was Wasilla policy other than Police Chief Fannon's statement in the Frontiersman. The $5,000 to $14,000 amount he describes seems pretty large given the 1-2 rapes per year (@ $300 to $1,200 per kit). I think there's an alternative explanation for that statement. Chief Fannon wasn't talking about current policy, he was speculating on what the town would (might) do if the Alaskan state gov't continued its policy of pushing the costs of criminal investigations to local governments.

As the Yellin report at CNN indicates, at that time (year 2000) it was the State of Alaska's policy to begin shifting the costs of criminal investigations to local governments, which in fact constitutes an unfunded mandate. It appears that Police Chief Charlie Fannon's assertion of '$5,000-$14,000' for forensic medical exams (including non-rape forensic medical exams) was the tab Wasilla would have to pick up because the State was shifting the burden of investigations to local gov't. He was, hypothetically, talking about billing victim's insurance (a practice that, as we have seen, exists in other states) to make up the shortfall. (Of course this would not have been legal after Alaska passed HB 270 and in fact was never done.) It was probably just a political ploy on Fannon's part -- just as gov't agencies usually threaten to cut their most critical services when faced with budget reductions. Former Chief Fannon has made himself unavailable for interviews.
Somehow this statement then morphed (for some people) into a description of what Wasilla was actually doing.

the absence of a record by the town of wasilla for paying for the exams is explained one of two ways:

1. there were no rape kits charged to victims because there were no rapes, or the local government paid for them, or

2. victims were charged for rape kits, but not by the town of wasilla or the police department, but rather, directly from the hospital that issued the kit. this would naturally happen if the town has a policy of not paying the bill.

we know the town of wasilla did not pay for the rape kits under police chief shannon and mayor palin, as this was the stated policy. we know from the town of Wasilla's own records that there were 10-18 sexual assaults each year of Palin's term.

LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, came forward to testify. She clarified that while it may be true that Deputy Commissioner Smith may not have found an instance where law enforcement has forwarded a bill, hospitals have. It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward. It is important to keep the word "indirectly" in there or to state "not charge health insurance." "Unfortunately, Representative Brice, if you just say victim, there are still agencies who take it that means sending me the statement. They don't consider my insurance as being the victim." It is important to encapsulate that indirectly. She reemphasized that often it is DFYS that is bringing children forward and billing Medicaid, and DFYS has that arrangement with Medicaid.

So this is testimony that indicates there is at least one bill being forwarded to a patient by a hospital, and that by some legislator's definitions, billing the victim's insurance agency is not considered the same as billing the victim. We also know that something specifically in Mat-Su Valley is the case for the legislation, HB270, being brought forward.

The principal hospital in Mat-Su Valley is the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, which services the towns of Palmer and Wasilla, the two main population centers in the Mat-Su Valley region.

A review of the line items in the 2000 Wasilla city budget (submitted April 1999 and signed by Palin) also reveals the general category also covering the rape kits dropped from $4000 per year to $1000 for the year in question -- less than the $300-1200 cost of a single rape kit. (more detail than you could ever want on this, here).

Now, I am not a lawyer. But it seems to me that all of the above raises plenty basis for further, reasonable inquiry into Palin's judgment on rape kits. As in 'what was she thinking?' Not quite the 'myth' Slate and NRO have portrayed it to be.

A retraction of one line: we know the town of wasilla did not pay for the rape kits under police chief shannon and mayor palin, as this was the stated policy.

This is incorrect as of course they never stated it out right.

This assertion is demonstrated by argument, the fact of Shannon's positions against the bill requiring local law enforcement to pay for the kits, the reduction in that year's city budget for the line item expense that covered the kits to less than the cost of a single kit, and the testimony that a Mat-Su Valley hospital had been billing rape victim(s), which was one of the causes for the bill being brought forward.

Well, this has been fun. Thanks. I love this blog, but I don't spend much time in the comments section. ;-)

Then you go on to prove that some towns did charge. Good, and Wasilla? Nothing. But gee, you can't let go that maybe they did, because, well, why? Because you just feel it is true.

Oh and she line item reduced money in the general category including these things. You know, because they couldn't cut that money from anywhere else. And you say it couldn't possibly cover the rape kit. But you yourself said they cost between $300, and $1200. So maybe they figured they would buy up to two $300 ones and still have $400 for everything else on the list.

I mean seriously, what in that that is worth over a $1000 a pop? It sounds like your classic $500 hammer. I know liberals think we should never question a government expenditure, but how about you explain why they couldn't possibly spend $300 and get all they need?

> But it seems to me that all of the above raises plenty basis for further, reasonable inquiry into Palin's judgment on rape kits. As in 'what was she thinking?'

See, the first sentence is utterly reasonable. Sure, investigate away. Go up there, get on a dog sled and knock yourself out. But 'what was she thinking?' It presumes again facts not in evidence.

For the left, supposition has long replaced facts in the debate over Palin.

For instance, remember long ago when everyone was convinced that Palin supported abstinence-only education only then someone actually checked the record and discovered no, she didn't? And I have actually had a person argue that it was irresponsible for the Palins to conceive Trig, their youngest child. When I pointed out that there was no evidence that this was intentional, my opponent continued to attack them for not doing everything to prevent conception. I jokingly called him an advocate of abstinence in marriage (for if you really don't want to conceive, that is the only way it will work). He denied he was judging them for merely having sex, but you cannot logically condemn them for conception without saying they shouldn't have had sex at all. But then logic doesn't have a lot to do with this, does it?

I can't figure out where this prejudice comes from, but you should all should take a deep breath and say for once why you really hate her. And for bonus points, make sure every part of your statement can be verified as fact. And here's a hint: if you say no experience, try again. Your boy Obama has even less.

you liberal morons … It never ends with you howling monkeys on the left … your boy Obama

Ace! It's always nice to see you, because you do such a good job of discrediting the GOP. I see you're not going to go away just because you were banned. You're also doing a nice job of proving that The Ace by any other name is still the same old Ace.

as if your wife is corporate counsel for a hospital, and you obtain an earmark for that hospital

Obama didn't obtain an earmark for his wife's hospital.

I have actually had a person argue that it was irresponsible for the Palins to conceive Trig, their youngest child

That argument was here. You did a nice job of claiming that there's no reliable way to prevent pregnancy, and that adults aren't responsible for their behavior.

If this Ace was banned, then how come I am not, if I am really him? Then again, I shouldn't expect such a backwards sexist pig to understand very much about computers. It is amazing you can even go on the internet, given that.

> [me] as if your wife is corporate counsel for a hospital, and you obtain an earmark for that hospital

> [you] Obama didn't obtain an earmark for his wife's hospital.

First, its funny you knew exactly who I was talking about. And as a point of fact, it is true. Follow the link and read the links.

> That argument was here.

Oh, that's right, YOU are that idiot who thinks that people can have sex and 100% prevent pregnancies. Thanks for reminding me.

Let's go over this again. You blamed Palin for getting pregnant when she, according to your piggish view, couldn't handle it. Here's the exchange on the point, of course over posts over several hours and possibly days.

> [you] Conceiving Trig was an irresponsible act

> [me] How do you know that was intentional?

> [you] I didn't say it was, but it doesn't matter. Unless you want to claim that their act of sexual intercourse was unintentional.

> [me] Oh wow, so you are promoting an abstinence only approach to birth control... in a marriage. You are mad that Todd actually had sex with Sarah!

> [me, cont.] That is [laughter] pretty remarkable.

Of course your response was 100% bullshit. If you say that they were irresponsible, you are implying that they did volitionally cause it. So you did "say it was" intentional.

Then of course you backed off in the next response saying that:

> There are many other methods of birth control that are quite effective, especially when used in combination with each other.

Well, let's check that. Are any of those methods 100% effective? This is what the Food and Drug Administration has to say about different methods.

Look them over… do any of them add up to 100% effectiveness? Um, no. So how do you know, as you originally supposed, that the decision to conceive was a decision at all?

You don't.

Here's the no-spin truth about that exchange. You said something stupid. We all do now and then. But rather than man up and admit your error, you refused to admit it, indeed try to pretend you didn't say it at all.

You also seemed to think there was any way a parent can 100% prevent their daughter from getting pregnant, without using a chastity belt.

You seem to blame them for a lot of things that most rational people know is just a roll of the dice. But rationality doesn't have much to do with this, does it? This is about how she is a republican, so therefore she's EEEEEEEEVIL.

So... I will ask the same question. Why do you really hate her? Stop all this bullshit and say what you really think. Let's have the real discussion instead of some deluded argument that every parent whose child gets pregnant is a bad parent and women should be in the home. And I both know you don't believe that—it's a pretext. But what is it that really bothers you about her?

Or do you want to keep having your idiot conversation where you tell women to go back into the home, girls to wear chastity belts, and couples not to have sex at all?

Wait, are you actually a Shaker? I thought there were like only 3 of you left, very old and very frustrated.

One of Obama's Earmark Requests … in the list of earmarks he requested … The request was put in in 2006

(Emphasis added.) Can you comprehend that the words request and obtain do not mean the same thing? The NRO article you cited does a nice job of not mentioning that Obama's request didn't pass:

among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center

Another important fact you seem to not know: also on Obama's list were earmarks for about eight other Chicago hospitals. And most of those other earmarks were larger.

If he really wanted to help his wife's career, he wouldn't be doing so much to support the institutions that compete with her employer. The facts show that he was advocating for health care in general, and not for one hospital.

And having sex is not a God-given right. If you can't figure out how to work contraception, and if you're not available to take care of an infant, and you're not interested in any form of sex other than vaginal intercourse, then you're obliged to do this: abstain. And if you do the wrong thing and get pregnant anyway, here's what you're obliged to do when the baby is born: pick a parent to stay home and take care of it. Especially if it's a special-needs infant, and especially if you are not both being driven to work by severe economic pressures.

If you say that they were irresponsible, you are implying that they did volitionally cause it.

Unless you were holding a gun to their heads forcing them to have vaginal intercourse without using proper contraception, then they did indeed "volitionally cause it."

Are any of those methods 100% effective?

Tell us about the long list of people you know who got pregnant as a result of oral sex.

You seem to blame them for a lot of things that most rational people know is just a roll of the dice

If the shoe was on the other foot, we wouldn't be hearing platitudes about "roll of the dice," and "life happens." It would be more like this:

If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.

> Can you comprehend that the words request and obtain do not mean the same thing?

You're right. I was wrong. He tried to get an earmark for his wife's own hospital, but could not. It was too unseemly, even for congress.

I feel much better about him as a reformer now.

And see, I could admit to being wrong. Why can't you man up and do the same?

> I guess you're that idiot who never heard of … [lists about 12 different methods of birth control that I specifically referred to by citation] and sex without vaginal intercourse. Which are indeed ways "that people can have sex and 100% prevent pregnancies," especially when multiple methods are combined.

So, lol, you are not advocating abstinence as birth control between a husband and wife, only penis-vagina abstinence. But anal, oral, etc.. all cool with you. You are a generous boy. You know its funny, before Lawrence v. Texas these acts were considered so perverted by some that they were actually illegal even in the context of (straight) marriage. But according to you, it is not only not perverted, but the ONLY moral form of sex for them, unless Palin is willing to give up all her pesky career ambitions.

But except for the abstinence part, none of those methods are actually 100% effective. And here is a hint. Combining two methods that are not 100% effective will at best reduce the chances of them both failing; it doesn't eliminate it. Frankly I am more and more convinced you are a child because anyone with a basic knowledge of probability knows that. I mean seriously, were you asleep in 7th grade algebra?

I mean honestly, you sound like a 13 year old girl who thinks she is still a virgin because she only gives BJ's. "Oral is moral!"

Hey wait a minute… there is a famous person who claimed vaginal sex in certain contexts was actually immoral, but BJ's were a-OK. Holy crap, you are Bill Clinton, aren't you?

> And having sex is not a God-given right.

Actually, I seem to recall God saying something about being fruitful and multiplying. And indeed, you are now even disagreeing with the Supreme Court on this point. What exactly do you think Griswold v. Connecticut was all about, if not the God-given right to have sex without fear?

I thought you liberals liked the Griswold decision?

> And if you do the wrong thing and get pregnant anyway, here's what you're obliged to do when the baby is born: pick a parent to stay home and take care of it.

So women, stop dreaming. Go home and make babies. Pig.

And I love that phrase "do the wrong thing." According to many faiths and sometimes even the law, a man and woman aren't married until they actually have vaginal sex. Indeed, in that article on the shakers I pointed out to you, in many states impotence is actually a legal grounds of divorce. But to you, a man having vaginal sex with his own wife is "the wrong thing."

Mmm, by that logic, gay sex is always right (if there is consent, etc.), but occasionally heterosexual sex is wrong. Who knew? All those straight men and women were the actual sinners!

> If the shoe was on the other foot, we wouldn't be hearing platitudes about "roll of the dice," and "life happens."

Right, and this is where you hallucinate me into being a hypocrite. Gotcha. Its reduction ad hallucinogen: you are reduced to hallucination.

Or traditionally we call it a straw man.

By the way, let's talk about a real shoe on the other foot scenario. Obama has two young children and yet both he and his wife worked. And yet, you have not once denounced that. Funny that. Shouldn't you be saying that Obama shouldn't have been a senator and state legislator since he had children? And indeed, he shouldn't have had vagina sex with his wife, because who knows, they might have a special needs child. Mind you, I don't know if he has done "the wrong thing" as you so artfully put it, but I am willing to bet with you that he has. But you don't seem to be too concerned about Obama's children or his sex life. So is that partisanship, or just good old fashioned sexism, that led you to treat this male democrat different from a female republican?

Partisan hack or pig. Those are your choices.

> Unless you were holding a gun to their heads forcing them to have vaginal intercourse without using proper contraception, then they did indeed "volitionally cause it."

Well, it is good to see you admit that, finally. Let's roll that tape again:

> [you] Conceiving Trig was an irresponsible act

> [me] How do you know that was intentional?

> [you] I didn't say it was

Now you admit you did say it was. Which was obvious to anyone who knew English.

Or did you lose track of all your lies? This is a perfect example of how I am convinced that you are just spinning this bullshit because you refuse to stop and talk about what is really bothering you about Palin.

I mean really, which is more likely? That you feel that Palin is a bad person because she had vaginal sex with her husband when she wasn't willing to stay home and be a proper baby machine; that she did conceive a child and then refused to quit her career for it; and because she didn't put a chastity belt on their daughter? Or that you are just full of it, and you hate her for a completely unrelated reason?

Monty, I will go with door number 2!

But then, why won't you just talk about what's really bothering you? Because I think in truth what you don't like is political, because you are such a radical that you know that your political ideals discredit themselves. So you will pretend you are outraged over one bullshit issue after another that you imagine that conservatives are hung up on, and get ever more delusional in your argument as the conservatives refuse to go along. Admittedly, that is just a hypothesis, but it makes much more sense than taking you at your word.

And see, I could admit to being wrong. Why can't you man up and do the same?

I admit to being wrong when I'm shown to be wrong. I could show you some examples. It's just that none of them involve you.

you are not advocating abstinence as birth control between a husband and wife, only penis-vagina abstinence

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm merely pointing out what's obvious: adults are responsible for the choices they make. And pregnancy is not something that just happens. It's the result of people making choices. I'm criticizing the choices that led to Trig's conception, and I'm criticizing their failure to care for him properly after he was born.

For a woman over 40, avoiding pregnancy is hardly an insurmountable challenge. Fertility declines with age. "If you are a healthy 30-year-old woman, you have about a 20% chance per month to get pregnant. By age 40, however, your chance is only about 5% per month" (pdf). 29% of married women over 40 are infertile.

before Lawrence v. Texas these acts were considered so perverted by some

This is what's truly perverted: having a kid and not taking care of it.

unless Palin is willing to give up all her pesky career ambitions … So women, stop dreaming. Go home and make babies. Pig.

Good old ace. You just don't pay attention, do you. I didn't say mom has to be home. I said a parent has to be home. I guess you're so deeply sexist that you can't even comprehend the possibility that dad can take care of the kids. Trouble is, in this household that's not the arrangement. Dad is very busy being an oil-rig worker, commercial fisherman, and championship snow-machine racer. Busy dude.

And staying home for some period of time when the kid needs you most is not the same thing as giving up your entire career.

But except for the abstinence part, none of those methods are actually 100% effective

Really? Oral sex can lead to pregnancy? Were you asleep in 7th-grade biology?

It would also be extremely helpful if you could deliver some credible anecdotes about women in their forties who got pregnant even though one or both partners were sterilized. Or women in their forties who got pregnant even though they were using multiple birth control methods carefully (like, say, pill plus diaphragm plus rhythm). Surely you have some anecdotes about this, right?

I seem to recall God saying something about being fruitful and multiplying

I seem to recall God saying something about how "if a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Do you really want to get into a discussion about biblical literalism?

What exactly do you think Griswold v. Connecticut was all about, if not the God-given right to have sex without fear?

I missed the part of Griswold that said adults aren't responsible for the sexual choices they make. I also missed the part that mentioned God.

But to you, a man having vaginal sex with his own wife is "the wrong thing."

To me, a man having vaginal sex with his own wife, without using effective contraception, when no parents are available to take care of a baby, is indeed doing "the wrong thing." And the "wrong thing" is compounded further when the parents avoid making the necessary sacrifices after the child is born.

Mmm, by that logic, gay sex is always right (if there is consent, etc.), but occasionally heterosexual sex is wrong.

Yes, "heterosexual sex is wrong" under the conditions I've described. Heterosexual sex carries a pregnancy risk and responsibility that is obviously not present in gay sex.

Who knew? All those straight men and women were the actual sinners!

When they act irresponsibly in the manner I described, they are indeed sinners.

Obama has two young children and yet both he and his wife worked. And yet, you have not once denounced that.

I didn't say the pregnancy was intentional. I said the sex was intentional. I already explained this. Are you really too thick to understand the difference, or are you just pretending to be too thick to understand the difference?

Or no wait, I get it. Its okay, but I get it. Its because she is white, isn't it? [laughing at you]

> I guess you're so deeply sexist that you can't even comprehend the possibility that dad can take care of the kids.

So this is all a criticism of Todd?

Of course not, it is a criticism of Sarah for doing... what exactly? Not taking a gun to his head and forcing him to stay home?

Besides if you really want him to stay home, elect McCain. He will almost certainly quit his job, and become a full-time husband and father. Problem solved.

And, yes, it is functionally sexist to say one parent should stay home, because if all couples did that then most of the time it would be the woman staying home. The people who wrote our tax code understood that and specifically wrote it so that a single earner did better than most joint-filers, so that all those rosie the riverter types would go back home to the kitchen at the end of WWII. Why is it that Congress gets it but you don't?

> And staying home for some period of time when the kid needs you most is not the same thing as giving up your entire career.

Except of course you forgot in your last thread you blamed Bristol's pregnancy on her failure to be at home. So for apparently for you that time stretches until at least 18.

See, this is a perfect example of why I think you are just lying. Because you can't even remember your prior positions. Your prior position was that Sarah must stay home until all of her children are independent. But here you suddenly forget you said that. I have to think you forgot, because if it was a lie, it was any all time stoopid one. So how exactly do you forget… what you already believe? Unless you don't believe it.

> [me] But except for the abstinence part, none of those methods are actually 100% effective

> [you] Really? Oral sex can lead to pregnancy?

Are you too stupid to understand English? I wasn't talking about oral, I was talking contraception, as in condom, sterilization, and so on. Oral sex is not a form of contraception; it is merely an alternative form of sex, you complete moron.

Go back to that Food and Drug Administration page and they will tell you what your 7th grade sex ed teacher would have told you: nothing is 100% effective, but actual abstinence.

> It would also be extremely helpful if you could deliver some credible anecdotes about women in their forties who got pregnant even though one or both partners were sterilized.

I gave you statistical and scientific evidence but you won't accept it until you see anecdotal evidence? Wow, everything is upside down with you, isn't it?

> I seem to recall God saying something about how "if a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Do you really want to get into a discussion about biblical literalism?

Well, your party is the one who elected and reelected a serial adulterer... As in, YOU Bill Clinton.

> I missed the part of Griswold that said adults aren't responsible for the sexual choices they make.

Actually the point of it was to free up the ability to have sex. But you want them all to wear chastity belts, I guess.

And I don't recall the Supreme Court ever declaring that a woman had to stay home with her babies in any case. Though it might have come up way back in the time when women were not even allowed to vote. Or the "Good Old Days" as I am sure you call them.

> [me] But to you, a man having vaginal sex with his own wife is "the wrong thing."

> [you] To me, a man having vaginal sex with his own wife, without using effective contraception... [is evil, bad, horrifying—they should be shot!]

By effective contraception, you must mean no vaginal sex at all, because no other method is 100% effective.

> I've addressed that silly point many times before. Like here.

No, you didn't. You said yourself that any having child meant a parent had to stay home. So apply your own standards evenly, you cave man.

Again, pig or partisan hack. Those are your only choices.

But once again, what is that really bothers you about her? It can't really be all this silliness, because exactly no one is fooled by it.

So why can't you just be honest and tell us what a little maoist or Marxist you really are? But stop pretending you are some "a woman's place is in the kitchen" moron. No one is buying it.

I gave you statistical and scientific evidence but you won't accept it until you see anecdotal evidence?

You gave statistical evidence indicating the odds of a 42-year old woman getting pregnant even if one or both partners are sterilized? You gave statistical evidence indicating the odds of a 42-year old woman getting pregnant even if using multiple birth control methods carefully?

I must have missed it somewhere. I asked you for anecdotes because I'm willing to accept them in lieu of statistics. But if you have the statistics for the scenarios I just described, let's see them.

your party is the one who elected and reelected a serial adulterer

If you have a problem with adulterers, I guess that means you won't be voting for McCain. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're the same "The Ace" who made a fool of yourself by repeatedly claiming that McCain "did not have an affair," even though it had already been pointed out that "McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs." Good old ace. Never let any inconvenient facts get in your way.

And what was that you said about being "man" enough to admit you're wrong? A nice sexist expression, by the way.

> You gave statistical evidence indicating the odds of a 42-year old woman getting pregnant even if one or both partners are sterilized?

No, and I didn't say I did. Is English not your first language?

I gave you failure rates for birth control and all of them are above zero. Basic statistics, you moron.

> If you have a problem with adulterers,

Admittedly not so much, but you brought up that passage of the bible not I, and I couldn't resist pointing out how silly it was for you to cite it.

> I guess that means you won't be voting for McCain.

So let me get this straight. I don't like a man who apparently screwed everything that moved, and was a selfish lover to boot, and thus I should be mad at a guy who had one affair, with a woman he finally decided to marry? Right the situations are exactly identical.

> Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're the same "The Ace" who

Except I am not him. I didn't actually hear McCain admit it, but I heard the facts set out so what happened is pretty obvious. A terrible moral failing that he has flogged himself for before Rick Warren. So?

The rest of it is just your delusional pretending that I am The Ace. By the way, a curiosity question. Why would I be him? I mean obviously your theory is that he got banned, allegedly, but you are just certain I am really him in disguise. Except I am on record as being here, as commenting on the blog for literally years before the ban took place.

Indeed, I don't even see evidence that he has been banned. Maybe I missed it, but he has posted as recently as 9/21, so… But then maybe I missed an event.

But don't let any inconvenient facts get in the way.

> A nice sexist expression, by the way.

Well, I figured I might shame a pig like you into finding your courage with terms like that.

But I think it is cute that after you revealed yourself to be a "the woman's place is in the kitchen" type of cave man, you get hung up on the word "man." Really, again, do you think anyone is buying your routine?

Some people might actually think that having an affair and then returning to your family is actually morally superior to having an affair and then leaving your kids and crippled wife behind so you can run off with someone barely half your age.

A terrible moral failing that he has flogged himself for

I realize you're impressed by the way "he has flogged himself," but the problem is that McCain's "terrible moral failing" is a sign of a deeply flawed character. And he remains just as flawed as ever, if not more so. That's reflected in his constant lying. It's incredibly easy to find Republicans pointing out what a "politically opportunistic liar" he is.

I don't even see evidence that he has been banned. … But don't let any inconvenient facts get in the way.

Well, I will have to see proof of that. So far I only know of one, Cindy.

> Some people might actually think that having an affair and then returning to your family is actually morally superior to having an affair

A perfect example of where you are throwing up bullshit. Its not even your argument, just how "some people" feel.

But, bluntly, often no father is better than a really bad one. That was true in the case of Clinton's father; Bill and our entire country literally would have been better off if his dad was hit by a bus shortly after conception. Really, I would have voted for the guy but I knew he was going to massively f--- this up.

And likewise, do you think it is a good thing for Chelsea to have been put through all of that? She would literally have been better off with no father than Bill Clinton. Now, mind you, all of that is very sad, because it is a cyclical thing, but by the time you have children you have a duty to sort your shit out, or get away from them so you don't do any damage to them.

And what is this "an affair" routine. Do you really want to argue that Bill C. only had one?

> Some people might actually think that having an affair and then returning to your family is actually morally superior to having an affair and then leaving your kids and crippled wife behind so you can run off with someone barely half your age.

First, now who is using prejudiced language?

Second, I am not someone who believes that a person should chain themselves to an unhappy marriage. Its funny how you are advocating all those things that I thought the American left discarded years ago.

> but the problem is that McCain's "terrible moral failing" is a sign of a deeply flawed character.

Lol, you want to talk character? When McCain was in a prison camp, they offered him early release. But he knew it would be wrong. So he refused. I would say on the balance sheet of his character he comes out far ahead of Obama, even if he turns out to be as much of a serial adulterer as Bill Clinton.

By comparison, let's see here… when faced with a bill to ban infanticide, Obama killed it. He voted for a bill that tried to give us something called "age appropriate" but also "comprehensive" sex ed to children. And for twenty years he has sat in a racist church, bringing even his young daughters to be taught a message of hate literally toward their own blood based on nothing more than a difference of pigmentation. He has associated himself with terrorists and corrupt businessmen when it was convenient to him and then threw them under the bus when those associations came to light.

Let's take specifically his church. His church is nothing less than an out-and-out racist church. Reverend Wright specifically said he believed in "Black Liberation Theology" as enunciated by Jim Cone, as did his church's "talking points." And what does Cone have to say?

> Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Got that? If God is not for black people and against white people, then God is bad. Not just against bad white people, but all of them. So he wants God to hate a newborn white child. Obama sat quietly in the pews as he was taught to hate his very flesh, to hate his grandmother, to hate his own mother, to hate his aunts and uncles, and his cousins. And until very recently, he exposed his children, every Sunday to this vileness.

Which is not to say that I think Obama really believes this crap. Let's just say that one of my unsaid operating assumptions in life is all men love their mothers, until
powerful proof to the contrary is presented to prove otherwise (and in this case, I have seen no evidence, besides Wright's silliness, to demonstrate that). But which is worse? To expose your children to hate because you hate? Or to do so knowing it is wrong? So I don't say that to argue that Obama hates white people, or for that matter he favors infanticide; I say it to demonstrate that he is instead a uniquely craven politician.

Yeah, let's have a discussion of their relative characters. I welcome it.

Do you notice the plural? It's quite tedious that you deny readily-available facts until they're spoonfed to you.

often no father is better than a really bad one

This statement is pointless unless you're claiming that McCain screwing Cindy and leaving Carol was morally superior to if McCain had screwed Cindy and gone back to Carol.

do you think it is a good thing for Chelsea to have been put through all of that?

I realize you're obsessed with Clinton. I'm not. Get over it. He's not running. McCain is. By the way, I voted for Clinton this many times: zero.

by the time you have children you have a duty to sort your shit out, or get away from them so you don't do any damage to them

That's one opinion. Here's another one: if you have kids, you have an obligation to stick around and parent them until they're grown, even if your penis has a different agenda.

now who is using prejudiced language?

Not me. I'm just expressing the literal truth. McCain left his kids and crippled wife behind to run off with someone barely half his age. Those are facts. I guess you expect me to spoonfeed you exact citations again, because you never heard of google.

I am not someone who believes that a person should chain themselves to an unhappy marriage.

It's not just that he left her (although that's a problem in itself). It's the way he left her. And it's the fact that he still lies incessantly, which is a reflection of the same poor character that caused him to lie to Carol. Speaking of lying, he has admitted that he lied to Cindy the day he met her: he lied about his age.

Its funny how you are advocating all those things that I thought the American left discarded years ago.

It's funny how you have a hard time understanding that your ignorant stereotypes don't reflect reality. Please refer me to a shred of evidence that the "American left discarded" the idea that parents who choose to have kids are supposed to stick around and raise them. Or the idea that cheating on your wife isn't good.

You ask me to back up my claims, and I do. Now you back up yours.

But he knew it would be wrong. So he refused.

He knew it would be wrong, and it would be an explicit violation of regulations, and he also knew he would have been stigmatized, and his family probably would have disowned him. And many other POWs were given the same offer, and also turned it down.

He voted for a bill that tried to give us something called "age appropriate" but also "comprehensive" sex ed to children.

Speaking of lying. McCain did a lot of damage to himself by putting out that ad. A video explaining that the ad is dishonest is here. It's been viewed over a million times. Another helpful video is here. If you're interested in lots of details, see the VC thread on this subject.

First off, factcheck has sadly lost all credibility. But you don't have to believe them. They are in fact referring to the same article you reference a second later.

Then your proof amounts to an "s." No actual quotes just a statement that is second hand at best, and could be a typo for all we know. Well, maybe, but confessing to a minimum of two affairs around 30 years ago it still doesn't put McCain anywhere near your boy Clinton.

It's a funny definition of "readily available" when you couldn't find it for two days.

> This statement is pointless unless you're claiming that McCain

Actually, specifically I was talking about Clinton. Since he couldn't sort his shit out, he should have just left them.

> I realize you're obsessed with Clinton. I'm not.

Yeah, that is why you leapt to his defense when I pointed out he was a serial adulterer, right?

> By the way, I voted for Clinton this many times: zero.

Do you really believe I am stupid enough to buy your late-breaking disassociation with him. If you didn't vote for him, you would have said that the first time I brought it up.

> [me] by the time you have children you have a duty to sort your shit out, or get away from them so you don't do any damage to them

> [you] That's one opinion. Here's another one:

You clearly haven't lived this issue. You haven't seen a brother in law who beat your sister, just like his dad beat his mother, just like his grandfather beat his grandmother, and so on back as far back as anyone remembered . The reality is some people don't sort their problems out, and they pass it down to their children. Bill Clinton's father fucked him up and chances are, Bill Clinton fucked Chelsea up. Sometimes no father is better than a bad one.

Of course ideally Bill Clinton should have sorted himself out and been a good father to Chelsea (and then he would have been a better president, too). But he didn't and if he couldn't figure out how to do that, then he should have spared Hillary the grief and divorced her.

> [me] now who is using prejudiced language?

> [you] Not me. I'm just expressing the literal truth. McCain left his kids and crippled wife

And so you do it again. In fact I am willing to wager that you don't even know what is wrong with what you said.

> It's not just that he left her (although that's a problem in itself). It's the way he left her.

Bull, you have made it very clear it is the mere fact he left her.

> Speaking of lying, he has admitted that he lied to Cindy the day he met her: he lied about his age.

Lol, now you consider lying about your age to impress the opposite sex a serious character flaw? Bwhahaha.

> It's funny how you have a hard time understanding that your ignorant stereotypes don't reflect reality. Please refer me to a shred of evidence that the "American left discarded" the idea that parents who choose to have kids are supposed to stick around and raise them.

Right, like the left has not supported the disintegration of the American family.

> Please refer me to a shred of evidence that the "American left discarded" the idea… that cheating on your wife isn't good.

Well, again, look who they elected.

> [McCain] knew it would be wrong [to accept early release], and it would be an explicit violation of regulations, and he also knew he would have been stigmatized, and his family probably would have disowned him.

Yeah, I am sure that is what convinced him: he was afraid of regulations! And stigma!

And disowned? No, I think they would have understood while being disappointed.

But please try to tell me that him volunteering for more beatings was done for anything less than selfless reasons.

And its funny, liberals correctly pointed out that beating a man into confession was not reliable, because often a person would say anything to stop the beatings, even if the result might be that they get the electric chair. But you don't seem to think beating McCain would put any coercive pressure on him.

> And many other POWs were given the same offer, and also turned it down.

Good for them. I don't know what it has to do with your point, but good for them.

> A video explaining that the ad is dishonest is here.

Its not dishonest. I've read the law. It clearly allows for comprehensive but contradictorily age appropriate sex education. And if you don't know that, it is either 1) because you don't know how to read the laws, or 2) you just mindlessly follow others and didn't read it at all.

And by the way, notice you didn't even bother to disagree with this following:

> And for twenty years he has sat in a racist church, bringing even his young daughters to be taught a message of hate literally toward their own blood based on nothing more than a difference of pigmentation. He has associated himself with terrorists and corrupt businessmen when it was convenient to him and then threw them under the bus when those associations came to light.

So seen in a light most favorable to Obama, McCain had at least 2 affairs decades ago, and selfishly submitted to additional beatings at the hands of the NVA. Meanwhile, the Lightbringer associated with crooks, racists and terrorists, and even exposed his young children to a racist doctrine that taught them to hate his mother, his grantparents and so on. Obama still loses that one.

By the way, what could be a more perfect example of the irrationality of the modern left?

You don't deny that McCain could have been let out early and all that. So instead you deny that it was heroic. Here's Fred Thompsons simple but moving description of the incident:

> "For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home. John McCain refused. He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer. He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom. He refused, even though his captors warned him, 'It will be very bad for you.' They were right. It was. The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at the gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew his shoulders back. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm."

Is your heart really so twisted, so hateful of all republicans, that this fails to impress you? That you can't say, "this is a genuine American hero, even if he is not right to be president"?

Or is this another case of you demonstrating that all this talk of character is another feint: that what really bothers you about him has nothing to do with his character?

Is your answer really going to be "yes, I am really that blinded by partisanship?"

Or are you going to stop BSing and talk about what really bothers you about the man, instead of this bullshit?